Bill Miller

David, you forgot to mention that you also have said to this forum that you have seen nothing that makes you believe the assassination films and photos are altered. Just a reminder that you are also part of the 'company'. Bill Miller

David, you must be really stupid to repeat the same half-assed argument over and over again. Once again, no one said the film could not be altered at any level if given a reasonable window of time ..... what you keep leaving out of the equation is that it could not be done so not to be detected by todays standards of investigating the possibility. No one has showed any evidence that the Zapruder film has been altered ... I believe that you and I have agreed on that to date. Bill Miller

It is Jack's errors in his alteration work that is being ridiculed, Mike. I have said many times that I only wish we could find where the Zapruder film had been altered, so believing in the possibility is not wrong IMO. As much as you and I have talked about this - I am suprised that you'd not know better. Bill Miller

OK, Jack ... was Moorman in the street or is Altgens 6 genuine ???? Bill Miller

No one attacks Jack - they attack the claims he makes. Here is an example of how a lack of forethought can lead to a bad conclusion IMO ... "Numerous witnesses, over 40, including the escort patrolmen to the rear of the limousine, said the limousine stopped or slowed down drastically for a second or two. The Muchmore film shows the limousine's brake lights on for nine frames (about half a second) during the time period corresponding to about frames 311-319 of the Zapruder film. This event is not seen in the Zapruder film; in fact, the limousine never comes close to performing this action in the current film." Which is the case - the limo stopped for a few seconds or it slowed down - it cannot be both ways! I am unaware of the brake lights coming on in the Muchmore film, not that it could not have happened. I recall the sunlight making the drivers rear tail light cover being illuminated, but I do not recall seeing the other tail light in shadow being lit. But lets assume the rear lights were lit - the limo doesn't have to stop for this to happen. All one needs to do is apply slight pressure to the brake pedal to make the tail lights come on. Bill Miller

That is correct, Chuck. Moorman's photo shows the front portion of the top of JFK's head in tact. Watch the clip below and look for the pinkish tone in the top of JFK's head when the bone plate comes off ... maybe seeing this will help. Bill Miller Brian, the answer to your question is that there is evidence of the shot exiting the back of JFK's head. Look at the clip as Jackie's hand slips away from JFK - can you not see the outline of the back of JFK's head showing that the bones are sprung opened? The Zaruder film (especially the MPI version) does not show great sharpness of the images on the film, thus we cannot look with clarity down into the hair to see the individual bone fractures sticking up through the scalp, but in silohouette we can see how it effected the shape of JFK's head. The autopsy photos do not reflect this damage seen on the Zapruder film. Bill Miller

You notice that Peter will say such things, but had nothing to say about post 64 which dealt with the evidence. Bill Miller I am not going to play your game, Jack. Gary Mack has told you that Robert has said the same things to him as I said on this forum. If Robert denys saying such things to you, then shame on Robert. However, I will wait to hear what Robert says in his defense because I know how you like to edit peoples remarks to fit your purpose. In the meantime, this is what I said to Robert upon reading the nonsense that you posted .... the images are not attached. Robert, I am troubled by some of the things Jack White has recently posted on the JFK forums concerning our discussions pertaining to Jack's photo and film alteration claims. Let me share with you the latest remarks by Jack concerning you and I's discussions .... "Because of "Miller's" lies about Robert Groden, I emailed Robert tonight. Here is part of his reply: "> He alleges you said the following: > > ..."he (GRODEN) says that Jack is not a photo expert and is one of the worst > people he has > seen at photo interpretation." > > Is the above quote accurate? > > No. I did not say that. " Robert, not 12 hours ago we had discussed Jack's photo interpretation skills pertaining to his alteration claims. We both acknowledged that Jack had done some good work in the past pertaining to the backyard photographs of Oswald and the Badge Man work that he and Gary Mack had done. However, at the same time we both agreed that Jack's more recent work pertaining to Zfilm alteration was crap! We agreed that Jack's interpretation of the photographical record and how it applied to Zfilm alteration was some of the worst we had seen. You went as far as to say that you felt Jack's ability to do such work went south after his attack some years back. Now I don't like putting you on the spot, but I don't like you sharing your opinions with me only to then deny them to others. This isn't about Jack being a good guy or bad guy, but rather about the accuracy of the alteration claims he has made. Below are excerpts from post I made on the JFK education forum ... "These alterationist know so little about the subject they are pretending to understand that they say things that are really absurd. Healy tells people to read Costella's web page. On that very web page, Costella finds it suspicious that the Life Magazine's prints are clearer than the MPI version of the Zapruder film. Costella fails to see that Life Magazine made prints from the camera original and MPI took photographs of the camera original's frames - ran them through a series of processes (some of which lose clarity/sharpness) - and then transferred the images onto film made for research purposes. Now in a court of Law, which picture would you find more reliable - a 1st generation photo or a third generation photo that has been filtered down? Groden becomes so disgusted at these guys because they have not bothered to learn the subject well enough to discuss it intelligently. Look at the colors seen on the Life print and compare them to the same colors on the MPI version ... this is just one aspect of determining whether one is looking at copies that are generations away from the original. The differences are so noticeable that one doesn't need to be an expert to see them with your own eyes even if you didn't know the causes for them - that's where people like Groden or Zavada come into play ... they know the "why's". You should do a search and go back and read the responses Healy gave and when you do - you will trust Groden's opinions even more. Bill Miller" Robert, you may recall our discussion concerning the magnification of the RR car in the Nix film. Here are some post that we discussed. Jack writes .... Robert, you and I discussed Jack's inability to understand perspective and angles pertaining to the assassination images. We agreed that Jack is terrible at these things and the above illustrations of Jack's prove the point. What follows are some replies back and forth that Jack and I had ... "Jack, this has been addressed many times to you. Can't you see the shelter is rotated between photos, thus the fields of view from the two photographers location would be different from one another. Did you never think to check this out during the many times that you have visited the plaza? Remember - you are supposed to be a master at understanding perspective. Bill Miller" Jack posted: "The reason for the train looking so large in one camera compared to another is a type of foreshortening effect even though that is probably not the correct term to use. The camera lens magnifies the more distant objects and this is why in the Nix film for instance ... the train looks to be parked right behind the fence despite it actually being across the RR yard. Bill Miller" Robert, here is what Jack specifically said about the information you had given me .... "Miller's photographic knowledge is abyssmal. A CAMERA LENS DOES NOT MAGNIFY MORE DISTANT OBJECTS". A lens captures the scene it sees. It does not magnify anything more than anything else. According to the focal length, a lens determines only the cropping of an image. Whatever a lens may "magnify", it "magnifies everything equally", like binoculars or a telescope. It never MAGNIFIES SELECTIVELY as "Miller" misinforms. And he pretends to know photography. Jack" ___________________________ "Alfred Hitchcock used the foreshortening effect in many of his movies. In vertigo when Jimmy Stewart was having a vertigo attack - Jimmy stayed the same size while the background was growing larger - that is one example of something that you just said does not exist. The "Foreshortening effect" can be researched on the Internet by doing a simple google search. "Images taken with long telephoto lenses exhibit a characteristic perspective distortion known as compression of space. Objects that are actually far apart appear unusually close together, and observed texture gradients and optic flows impart a distorted sense of orientation and depth." Bill Miller" ____________________________ "What "Miller" describes is known as SFX or special effects. But he is ignorant of such things. No known lens can stay in focus in the foreground and have the background zoom. As David Healy can instruct, Hitchcock frequently used REAR PROJECTION SCREEN backgrounds to achieve such effects. Alternately, they can be produced with matte insertions. Nowadays such effects are done with greenscreen backgrounds and computers. "Miller" needs to understand photography before he instructs senile researchers. Jack" ___________________________ Robert, you may recall the responses I cited you concerning a man who has over 40 years experience in photography. Craig Lamson said ... "Actually ANY lens can stay focused on the foreground while zooming in tighter on the background....." ___________________________ "Craig, don't try and educate Jack for he knows it all. When I read Jack's nutty response to Groden today - Robert about blew a gasket. Jack can say what he wishes ... the things I said were things that Robert Groden told me and Robert has forgotten more than Jack will ever know when it comes to photography. Jack has spent so much time with his alteration game that he has forgotten most of what he once knew about the basics concerning camera lenses and what they do. Bill Miller" ___________________________ "Lets take a look at your misinformation (or should that be DISinformation?) "According to the focal length, a lens determines only the cropping of an image." This is only partially true and then in only one specfic instance. A lens will only crop an image, over a lens of a different focal length ONLY if the two lense are used from the exact same camera to subject distance. Period. Change the camera to subject distance between lenses and your above statement does not apply. "Whatever a lens may "magnify", it "magnifies everything equally", like binoculars or a telescope." Totally untrue. The size relationship between objects in the foreground and the background is dependant on both the focal length of the lens and the distance from the camera to the foreground subject and the distance from the camera to the background subject. The size between the foreground and background will not always enlarge nor reduce equally. The foreshortening effect of a telephoto lens is a prime example. "It never MAGNIFIES SELECTIVELY as "Miller" misinforms. And he pretends to know photography." Actually Miller has it right. It is YOU who is providing the misinformation. And it seems it is YOU who is pretending to know photography. Craig" ___________________________ "Below is an example of what Jack said cannot be done. Just swap the building for the train car seen in the Nix film and you have your proof that it looks closer than it really is because of the camera lens and not because a conspirator failed to alter the photo to get past Jack's eagle eye. Bill Miller" Robert, Jack had this to say about the Hitchcock information you had shared with me ... "Hitchcock used a filming technique called a dolly zoom to achieve the "vertigo effect": "The dolly zoom is an unsettling in-camera special effect that appears to undermine normal visual perception in film. The effect is achieved by using the setting of a zoom lens to adjust the field of view while the camera dollies (or moves) towards or away from the subject in such a way as to keep the subject the same size in the frame throughout. In its classic form, the camera is pulled away from a subject whilst the lens zooms in, or vice-versa. Thus, during the zoom, there is a continuous perspective distortion, the most directly noticeable feature being that the background appears to change size relative to the subject. As the human visual system uses both size and perspective cues to judge the relative sizes of objects, seeing a perspective change without a size change is a highly unsettling effect, and the emotional impact of this effect is greater than the description above can suggest. The visual appearance for the viewer is that either the background suddenly grows in size and detail overwhelming the foreground; or the foreground becomes immense and dominates its previous setting. Which of these two apparent effects predominates depends on which way the dolly zoom occurs. The effect was invented by Irmin Roberts, a Paramount second-unit cameraman, and was famously used by Alfred Hitchcock in his film Vertigo, although it appeared earlier at the climax to his film Spellbound." Nobody in Dealey Plaza used the "dolly zoom". Jack" _______________________ "Yeh, only Jack would tell us that a camera lens cannot make objects further away look much closer to the camera than they really are ... especially when we have several assassination photos showing a train car that is clear across the RR yard looking as if it is parked just behind the fence. I then posted such a photo of a statue whereas a building that is a block away looks like it is just beyond the statue, but who cares - Jack says it cannot happen. Move over David, we now have 'Baghdad Bob Jack White' in the house! Bill Miller" _______________________ Jack posted the following pertaing to your conversation with him ... "What followed was an amicable personal discussion. Plus, he added that "he had heard THAT I HAD BEEN SAYING BAD THINGS ABOUT HIM". Hmmmmmm. I wonder who told him THAT LIE? Jack" Robert, I will close by saying that Jack has been notified by Gary Mack that the same type of discussions you and I have had about Jack's alteration work are the same ones that you and he (Gary) has had. Gary acknowledges the things that I have said about your opinions concerning Jack's poor interpretation of the photographical record and how it applies to his alteration claims. I won't judge you by the little bits that Jack posted on the Education Forum today because they may not reflect the entire conversation that you and he had ... Jack does like to edit peoples remarks in an attempt to win an argument. One such instance that I recall was when Jack posted an edited clip of Jean Hill saying she was in the street, while not acknowledging that Jean was also on record as saying she had gotten back out of the street before the first shot had been fired. Jack's last remark was that I had said that he had been bad mouthing you and that is not a correct statement. Did you confuse Jack's remarks pertaining to the foreshortening effect to those remarks that I told you that David Healy had made pertaining to your knowledge of film? Jack also seems to think he was talking about my information being garbage pertaining to Kodachrome II film, the altering of such film, and the alteration of nearly every assassination photo taken ... while not knowing that what I was saying had come from information you had given me over time. So in a way, when Jack bad mouths what information I have shared pertaining to the specifics - he is basically talking about the information you had given me, so take it how ever you like because I don't believe in the 'he's my buddy so I won't say publicly that he is full of beans' mentality. If Jack wants to make it an all for me or against me issue - that is between you and he. I can appreciate your not wanting to devulge all that you have said because of the compassion you hold for Jack pertaining to the reasons you gave me for believing why he says the things he does, but nothing that has happened to Jack equals what happened to John Kennedy in front of that colonnade. Either way - I have taken a stand on not what is right for Jack White, Robert Groden, or Bill Miller, but what is right pertaining to the truth about what happened to John Kennedy. Here is a quote that you might be interested in ... I don't think that I need to explain what it implies! Jack White: "Robert and I agree on nearly everything...EXCEPT his insistence that the Z film is NOT altered. I completely understand why he cannot change his stance, since all of his previous work depends on his being "the expert" on the film." Sincerely, Bill PS: Here is one of the "double talk" examples I told you about pertaining to Jack's alteration claims .... Dawn, also keep in mind that these alteration claims are so bogus that the people making them are contradicting themselves at times. Jack has people believing that Moorman was standing in the street, while at the same time Jack is saying that Altgens 6 is genuine. Altgens 6 shows Brehm, Moorman and Hill's shadows coming from the south pasture and over the curb. If this argument was presented to you in a court of law - YOU'D HAVE A FIELD DAY! Red arrow points to Hill and Moorman's shadows coming from the grass. Jack White says the Altgens photo is unaltered/genuine and yet Jack claims Moorman and Hill are in the street. I am not aware of a single person who supports alteration ever pointing this grave error out to Jack or Fetzer. If the error was pointed out, then it went into print anyway. Since that time, the error has been presented to these JFK forums and you still will see Jack trying to sell that bogus claim, as well as Healy. How much credibility would you give them in one of your court trials if they double talked like this in front of your jury??? These alterationist know so little about the subject they are pretending to understand that they say things that are really absurd. Healy tells people to read Costella's web page. On that very web page, Costella finds it suspicious that the Life Magazine's prints are clearer than the MPI version of the Zapruder film. Costella fails to see that Life Magazine made prints from the camera original and MPI took photographs of the camera original's frames - ran them through a series of processes (some of which lose clarity/sharpness) - and then transferred the images onto film made for research purposes. Now in a court of Law, which picture would you find more reliable - a 1st generation photo or a third generation photo that has been filtered down? Groden becomes so disgusted at these guys because they have not bothered to learn the subject well enough to discuss it intelligently. Look at the colors seen on the Life print and compare them to the same colors on the MPI version ... this is just one aspect of determining whether one is looking at copies that are generations away from the original. The differences are so noticeable that one doesn't need to be an expert to see them with your own eyes even if you didn't know the causes for them - that's where people like Groden or Zavada come into play ... they know the "why's". You should do a search and go back and read the responses Healy gave and when you do - you will trust Groden's opinions even more. Bill Miller

Donald - I think you were talking to someone else. Bill Miller

Open up Groden's book (The Killing of a President) and look at a good photo print and maybe things will be a little clearer for everyone. Bill Miller

It was on Robert's Birthday - 11/22 - we ate at this Asian place in Dallas that Robert likes to frequent. You know, Jack ... you can call Robert at any moment and confirm what I have said or is it better for you not to check the facts beforehand??? I also know that Gary Mack has notified you that he and Robert have had those same discussions concerning your alteration claims and that Gary has heard the same things come from Robert's own mouth. And don't wory about Copa or Lancer ... they are not inviting you back any time soon to talk about alteration. Bill Miller

You're right, David ... I am being called those things by an individual who double talks about the evidence ... how will I ever live this down. (see post 64) Bill Miller

Jack - Show us something good Groden has said about your alteration garbage??? I too, am Groden's friend ... spent the last 3 out of 4 B-days dining with him. He believes that your alteration claims are absurd. I speak to Robert on a regular basis and you are welcome to call him for an update any time you wish. I, and others, have said that your past work prior to your alteration claims was good, however, your poorly researched alteration claims have hurt your credibility. FWIW, Robert just got off the phone with me as I read him some of what was posted and he agrees that your alteration claims has hurt your credibility. This does not mean Robert doesn't view you as a friend, but instead he isn't going to pretend that you are correct when he knows you are wrong. You seem to think that those who agree with you must be friends and those who do not agree with you are the enemy. A friend is not a "YES MAN", but rather someone who will be honest with you if they believe you to be wrong. Bill Miller

It wasn't just a few weeks or so ago that we went over this stuff. Besides, it is good practice for those to learn how to use the forum search engine so they can go read the things you can't seem to recall saying. (God, I love those archives!) David, Dawn said she trust Groden's opinions, thus I shared them with her. xxxxx elsewhere! Bill Miller

IIRC the alterationists always claimed that the copy of the film screened in Zapruder's office the next morning was altered. IIRC Costella said that. Do you not back that theory? If not when do you think "the switch" was made? Costella also claimed that some of the stills from Life were from the altered film [b]Dawn, also keep in mind that these alteration claims are so bogus that the people making them are contradicting themselves at times. Jack has people believing that Moorman was standing in the street, while at the same time Jack is saying that Altgens 6 is genuine. Altgens 6 shows Brehm, Moorman and Hill's shadows coming from the south pasture and over the curb. If this argument was presented to you in a court of law - YOU'D HAVE A FIELD DAY! Red arrow points to Hill and Moorman's shadows coming from the grass. Jack White says the Altgens photo is unaltered/genuine and yet Jack claims Moorman and Hill are in the street. I am not aware of a single person who supports alteration ever pointing this grave error out to Jack or Fetzer. If the error was pointed out, then it went into print anyway. Since that time, the error has been presented to these JFK forums and you still will see Jack trying to sell that bogus claim, as well as Healy. How much credibility would you give them in one of your court trials if they double talked like this in front of your jury??? These alterationist know so little about the subject they are pretending to understand that they say things that are really absurd. Healy tells people to read Costella's web page. On that very web page, Costella finds it suspicious that the Life Magazine's prints are clearer than the MPI version of the Zapruder film. Costella fails to see that Life Magazine made prints from the camera original and MPI took photographs of the camera original's frames - ran them through a series of processes (some of which lose clarity/sharpness) - and then transferred the images onto film made for research purposes. Now in a court of Law, which picture would you find more reliable - a 1st generation photo or a third generation photo that has been filtered down? Groden becomes so disgusted at these guys because they have not bothered to learn the subject well enough to discuss it intelligently. Look at the colors seen on the Life print and compare them to the same colors on the MPI version ... this is just one aspect of determining whether one is looking at copies that are generations away from the original. The differences are so noticeable that one doesn't need to be an expert to see them with your own eyes even if you didn't know the causes for them - that's where people like Groden or Zavada come into play ... they know the "why's". You should do a search and go back and read the responses Healy gave and when you do - you will trust Groden's opinions even more. Bill Miller[/b]

What kind of an idiot would think that Life Magazine should have been more concerned about showing Moorman on the grass rather than to concentrate on showing the reactions of the victims inside the car. Such a remark is asinine and IMO it shows just how weak minded some people can be. Bill Miller

Good, Dawn ... then I will make it easy for you. Groden says that the alteration believers do not know what they are talking about. Robert says that while Jack White is a nice man - he says that Jack is not a photo expert and is one of the worst people he has seen at photo interpretation. Robert's opinion of Healy is not any better ... FWIW. Bill Miller

It's relevant because the numerous frames Life made stills of (not limited to the ones they chose to put into the magazine) had no time allotment to have been manipulated and this is why, David ... that you do not see any signs of alteration. Bill Miller

I believe that Shaneyfelt gave the week of the month that he took possession of the images and the numbering would have been one of the first things he did. Is someone suggesting that we need to know the hour and minute of the day the numbering started??? As has been posted by me already - Shaneyfelt's personal notes are to be donated to the Museum, so possibly the precise answer lies within those notes. However, I doubt that the exact time of day will stop the monkey spanking that Healy enjoys. Stoley took possession of the film and stills were printed before 24 hrs had elapsed because by Sunday morning the stills had been made and carefully gone over so to send them to publication. I believe that shipments of them magazines were completed by Sunday night because they were being mailed to customers by the next morning. Bill Miller

Let's not ever forget that Healy 'the videographer' has seen all the alteration claims and has stated that he has no evidence to show alteration on the Zapruder film. Another reason against alteration is that Life didn't get acces to Zapruder's film until Saturday - by Sunday (less than 24 hrs later) ... Life had made prints from the Zapruder film and had already had them ready to go out on the newstands. In those days, processing film was done the old fashion way, thus film enlargements would have to be made - alterations completed - and then got the new altered frames at the perfect lighting - perfect color tones - and somehow got the exact amount of blur for the alteration to match that of the remaining unlatered frame ... and all this would need to be done the old fashioned way. Those who would say that outdoor lighting could be duplicated do not realize that this would only be a part of the cover-up. Artifical lighting tends to cause color shifts when compared to outdoor lighting like that Zapruder filmed in. So when one thinks one aspect is possible - it becomes impossible when other factors are considered. Other things like the lost of sharpness when enlarging an image and then shrinking it back down was another factor discussed on this forum in recent times. Bill Miller

Brian, can you do overlays with film frame images? I use "Image Styler" which is pretty simple to operate. I would suggest you taking JFK's image at Z312 and overlaying it onto the film frames that interest you to see if Kennedy's face aligns properly, thus you are just seeing an illusion where you only thought the face was too far below the top of the head. Bill Miller When the frames are put in motion ... I see the top of JFK's head moving separately from Jackie's upper body, thus they are not one in the same and it is only the sunlight illuminating the President's hair that caused the illusion of us thinking we were seeing through to Jackie's coat. Bill Miller

Brian, can you do overlays with film frame images? I use "Image Styler" which is pretty simple to operate. I would suggest you taking JFK's image at Z312 and overlaying it onto the film frames that interest you to see if Kennedy's face aligns properly, thus you are just seeing an illusion where you only thought the face was too far below the top of the head. Bill Miller

Len, you are addressing the remarks of a sick individual who knows little of the evidence pertaining to the JFK assassination - who has had to admit he see's no evidence of alteration, yet tells people to read the evidence in a book that obviously did nothing to convince him of alteration - and someone who trolls a forum such as this for no other reason that to run up forum space ... incite disruption when ever possible ... and to provoke members into responding to things he has said that have no logical basis or facts to back him up. How many times has this asshole called known CT's - LNRs? How many times has that asshole been corrected only to continue saying the same ignorant things? Why would someone who takes JFK's assassination seriously want to behave in such a way? More importantly ... Why would John Simkin allow this person to continually get away with it? This is not a matter of 'Freedom of Speech', but more about sabotaging this forum for the reasons mentioned above. As far as the 5000 post refuting Jack White ... when Jack is ignored he will post to himself saying that people like myself must be stumped or afraid to address his stupid claims, then when we do respond - assholes like Healy complain about it. It's a no win situation! Bill Miller

dgh: well, Len your a newbie to this, I don't expect you to know 1/10th of what you claim to know when it comes to DP/JFK films. Nor have you or most everyone else on this board been on research forums where Jack posted a significant part of his JFK photo material (some opposed). What's plain and simple to me is this, until someone posts their qualifications regarding professional film/photo analysis to this board -- expect more of the same now what does Elvis has left the room, the Brits, the Shrubs, the Rothchilds, "lizard people", AND the Holocaust have to do with JFK/DP film-photos? The relevance of this escapes me... is this the best the preservers of DP photo history can mount, when it comes to a arguement -- pretty weak stuff, champ... foolish actually? I suspect that nonesense to come from Miller or Hogan -- not you! Colby, for some reason, and I suspect I know how you endeared yourself with the preservers of Dealey Plaza film/phot history -- Miller comes with too much baggage and you were given the nod to deal with Roland, I figure that gives a step up on the rest of the Lone Nut loons around here... that by no means means you pass anything of photographic interpretation value here [unless your passing gas]. If you think that was a compliment, you're spending way to much time running around that jungle down there. Actually all Lone Nutters on this board appear to do nothing but *scramble*, play catch up to JackW. -- gotta be 5000 posts to this board refuting Jack White -- makes one wonder whose dangling on the end of a string..... LMAO -- I've been proven wrong? -- Colby you've proven absolutely Z E R O, NADA, Ziltch... You Miller, Lamson and a few others are a JOKE when it comes to the film/photos of Nov 22nd 1963. We also know, you and the rest of the gang would never appear on a public forum [for the cameras] to debate Dealey Plaza film/photo issues... Muwah, proven wrong, vindicated ? -- ask RZavada, hey, ask Ray Fielding if they've proven me wrong, post their comments right here! BTW, how many books during the past 20 years were published stating the films/photos of Dealey Plaza and other assassination related images (including x-ray's) were altered, and/or labelled as outright fraud (another coming out soon)? How many books published countering those claims? You are a 'tard' when it comes to the photographic record, nothing to be ashamed of -- you're out of your league..... hell, that never stopped Miller either.... don't sweat it, just don't expect respect from those that do have subject expertise. Truck on champ, truck on It must take a real talent to use up so much forum space and never once actually cite any evidence that could benefit anyone wishing to learn something by reading this forum. Bill Miller

Brain, you may wish to get a better understanding of what version of the Zfilm you are using and what processes have been used to give off its appearence. Then you need to get a better understanding of lighting and exposure and what it can do to various shades on film. Below is that same view, but with a sharper image. President Kennedy's scalp can be viewed and only when it is lightened does it start to appear to look like part of Jackie's clothing which causes an illusion of the top front of the President's head to be missing. Bill Miller

Paul, I invite anyone to go back and read your last two post and then try to convice this forum that you are not just here to whack-off. You are just another clown who doesn't use specifics when claiming the Zapruder film a fraud. In the future, please cite word for word what someone has said pertaining to the Zfilm being a fraud so not to have you taking remarks out of context. Bill Miller